The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Taubitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotional article without evidence of notability. No sources to support the claims of prizes won, and no indication how significant those prizes are. Everything in the article is consistent with his being a perfectly ordinary, non-notable, musician. (PROD was contested without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of mention of him as a violinist in google books actually. Yes its an autobio but he actually meets notability requirements. Mentioned here in the NYT, "From 1997 he was Principal 2nd Violinist in the Berlin Philharmonic under Claudio Abbado." Berlin Philharmonic and Claudio Abbado are very notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give specific references to sources which give substantial coverage to him? I can find nothing that gives more than minor mentions, apart from such as the book "Adam Taubitz" published by VDM Publishing House Ltd, which says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" (Several more of the 21 books which appear in Google books also take content from Wikipedia.) To simply say "Plenty of mention of him", without citing actual sources, is not very helpful. As for "Mentioned here in the NYT", here is the single sentence which mentions him: "Glimpses of Bach emerged through a funky musical collage that meshed hip-hop turntable scratching on a laptop; various jazz idioms; energetic fiddling by Adam Taubic that earned cheers from the audience; Middle Eastern and Indian influences; and an irreverent duo between Ms. Dinnerstein and the ensemble." Scarcely substantial coverage, and nowhere near enough to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards. Finally, as for "Berlin Philharmonic and Claudio Abbado are very notable", yes, but notability is not inherited. We need evidence that Taubitz is notable, not that he has connections with people and things which are notable.|JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that playing under the Berlin Philharmonic and Claudio Abbadio is evidence that he is notable. Has an extensive biographical entry in Klassizistische Moderne, a book which covers notable contemporary classical musicians, and also has an entry in the book Celebrating 25 years of design practice in Canada by Wei Yew, mentioned as a violinist in publications such as The Jazz Discography, Swiss Music Guide, Musikhandel. An empty NYT bio here. Hong Kong Government mentions the Berlin Philharmonic jazz with other greats. We have thousands of other articles on similar level musicians in which extensive coverage about them is not massive but is mentioned in enough reliable sources to meet requirements. They obviously think he is notable too on German, French and Polish wikipedia. Add the fact he has worked with the Berlin Philharmonic and actually founded the jazz group of it, he is signed to EMI, a top record label, and has composed numerous tracks for films, he meets notability requirements, however much a douchebag the guy is to start his own article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A holder of a regular chair in the Berlin Philharmonic--let alone principal of a section-- or similar orchestra is notable. It;'s th highest level of the profession. We've held so for other orchestras like the NY Philharmonic without serious dispute. the only step beyond that, is a famous soloist, and notability is much less than famous. Some reviews of he recordings would help, of course. Being in such an orchestra requires an evaluation by one's colleagues under the highest possible standards. I am not prepared to over-ride Karajan and Abbado in whom they think is a notable violinist , and I'm e that anyone at Wikipedia would be willing to make such a judgment on their own authority. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Haha, like Karajan and abbado give a hoot about whether he's a "notable" violinist. I think they just care about whether he's a good violinist. Not everything that's quality is notable. Is it? 74.64.103.240 (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only third party refs are mentions (NYT doesn't even spell his name correctly). "Principal 2nd Violinist" isn't that notable a position. Persistently recreated autobio. Hairhorn (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

certainly it's a notable position. To repeat the basics, violinists are divided into 1st and 2nd violins; it does not imply inferiority. Anyone who holds any of the one or two dozen positions in each of those sections in that or a similar orchestra is notable; the Principal is head of the section & thus extremely notable. I'm not sure about exact numbers, but it would be one of the 100 or so most distinguished positions in the world, and is equivalent to head of department at the most important of universities. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I can't find a reliable source that actually verfies he held this position, nor is their any mention of it in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Since he appears to fail WP:GNG, I think we're done. Hairhorn (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep everything is consistent with a (self promotional) notable violinist. equivalent to Glenn Dicterow, or Marc Ginsberg. is there an anti-europe bias? here's the proof. Slowking4: 7@1|x 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep more or less per DGG. Article may call for sourcing improvements, but not deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs work, and the subject may need to have the WP:COI policy explained to him (again), but I think there is enough indication of notability. I am looking more at his solo and jazz work here; I don't think being an orchestral principal, even in the Berlin Phil, necessarily indicates notability — cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Anderson (musician). --Deskford (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Obviously, there's work to be done, but the subject seems to meet our criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm picturing Karajan and Abbado heading up a committee, sitting at the head of a long table deciding whether various musicians are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wait, what's that you say, you can't picture it? Right, that's because those guys decide who's worthy of inclusion in an orchestra. 74.64.103.240 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.